Congratulations to those who chose the option with two grenade bundles in the survey. 😅 Seriously, I struggled with this a bit and with more than two it would be difficult to maintain the quality of the simulation.
Oh yeaaaah, wow, that delay is so minimal, i couldn't see it unless i was looking for it! The left one even exploded first, that's such detail, love it! Would've thought it would make a larger impact but it wasn't a big deal at all it seems
Hey, I have a highly specific request which might be a cool what if, Japanese 120mm Mark 1 HE 一号通常弾 (fired from what is known as the 120mm short gun 短十二糎砲) vs a Sherman at the turret next to the 19mm strong roof, basically hitting the turret but exploding right above the hull roof. The 120mm round travels at 290m/s with a filler of 2.515kg of Type 91 explosive (TNT equivalence of 1.05 so ~2.64kg of TNT). Reason for this request being that whenever I see english articles on the tank that mounted this gun I see claims of it being useless against US tanks but after both this video and the German 105 vs the Churchill I'm very sure this round could've done significant damage when it hit at the right spot like the weak sherman roof.
My proposal to author: make a simulation where the Soviet armor-piercing projectile Br-350a with an MD-5 fuse impacts late pz3 to ufp with applique 20mm plate. I'm wondering if the projectile will detonate prematurely in front of the main armor.
Considering that Wehrmacht still used plenty of horses and horse-towed carts in WW2 (it's good enough for foot infantry I guess), hear me out: BF1 cavalry. It got the bundles.
One thing the simulation displays really well even though it wasn't the focus of it is the poor fragmentation of the M24. Being designed as an Offensive grenade, the main kill mechanism was the large blast of the warhead, that is with non bundled grenades. The casing was too thin and got blown into dust, which would have about the same lethal radius as the blast itself. For this reason, a clip-on fragmentation sleeve was designed for the M24, which improved the situation somewhat.
Fragmentation of WWII grenades was horribly unreliable. M24 Stielhandgranate with it's bigger blast charge was more effective than M2 and F1 frag grenades, even though their shells were intended for optimal fragmentation with wide radius, they failed at achieving it. Experiments shown the main source of lethality even in these grenades was the blast anyway
Well, for attack a trench or building where the grenade either goes off right next to your target or in the same corridor/room the blast is completely sufficient since fragments would be stopped by most hard cover as encountered in a siege anyways and you at least rule out most of the self-endagering factors
Very cool, thank you. Could you try these or the 3 kilo demo charge under the tank turret? I believe that was the optimal position according the German field manuals for tank busting.
To be fair, HE arty shells seem like a good anti tank weapon to me. While you probably won't destroy the tank (unless you score a directy hit), the dmg done to the rest of the tank is enough to cause an operational kill.
@@etuanno light tanks are definitely fucked, no matter the model. And if it's something like 152/155 or even 203, then good luck surviving it in anything less armored than, say, IS-2 or a Maus. T-34/Pz IV would be annihilated if it's a close hit or get shredded even if it hits dozen meters away. Ain't no War Thunder for a tank to survive artillery barrage.
@@unknowncommenter6698I have to mention just how ridiculous the Slovak Zuzana 2 is: MRSI with 155mm shells. I don't know what you need so dead, but I guess it was future proofed before hard kill systems even started entering service. We don't make many, but we do make them good.
there is a reason why these were even used in the first place. And funnily enough, the hull bottom armor was not much better off, which allowed it to double as an hand thrown anti tank mine of sorts. Even modern day tanks would get pretty fucked up by a bundle charge in the right spots. After all, Abrams front plate is only 38-50mm thick depending on variant....
didnt this channel also show that 125mm (russian) HE can crack the upper frontal armor on an abrams? (with some spicy pressure to go with it)@@123asap6
It would never happen in real life. Precise throw of a relatively heavy bundle on the hatch and all grenades going off at the same time... Yeah, not going to happen in actual fight.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 It does appear that each bundle created it's own hole. I imagine that a single bundle on top of the turret or engine deck would be an extremely unpleasant experience for the crew.
Or if just one grenade bundle. What are the chances two grenade bundles detonate at the same time? He just wanted to make the simulation show positive. He always alters details like that when he wants it to be successfull or not. Between the simulations channels ,this one is the most biased.
@@olisk-jy9rz You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. 1. Each bundle created a hole under it, there was no need for 2 of them in order to break through the armor 2. They did not detonate at the same time 3. Each individual grenade in a bundle did not detonate at the same time either As for "bias", Dejmian is THE only major simulations channel that is not biased whatsoever. His model is extremely accurate and has comparable results to real-life tests. Unlike other channels that ignore the laws of physics to pander to their wehraboo/slavaboo bias and instead of trying to emulate reality they try to emulate Trash Thunder... If you have any proof of bias you are welcome to show it.
@@TheJohn_HighwayYou say that. But the entire hatch buckled which contributed to each grenade being able to penetrate individually. Also notable is: what are the chances of both grenades detonating with all explosives at the closest possible point to the armour, considering they have a handle? This isn’t biased, but it is a blatant best case scenario to demonstrate something that’s more interesting than a hatch being bent.
@@KupituakPuchi so if we say the "travel distance" between the inner grenade and the outer grenades is 5cm, it would mean the delay is 0,007 ms or 7 micro seconds So basically instantaneous 🤔
The common practice was to place a grenade bundle under the KV-1 turret rear overhang, which had only thin metal on the underside, causing the explosion to easily breech and set off the ammunition stored there. This trick didn't work on the later KV-1C 1942 model because the underside of the turret rear overhang was armoured and in a shallow V shape to dissipate explosive charge blasts. A similar turret rear overhang vulnerability was exploited on all T-34/76 models, along with the underside weakness of the hull sponson overhangs. Placing charges on top of the track under the hull overhang was a common attack practice. Test it out in a simulation.
Imagine German troops were using the method with their bundle grenades when mounting an idle tank. Instead of prying the hatch open just leave the bundle on the hatch and let the TNT do the work.
instead of opening the hatch, they also put peanut butter paste on the vision slits to blind the crew from the outside, technically and temporarily disabling the tank
could you do a simulation of a bomb carrying dog against a Panzer II or IV? The soviets trained dogs to lay under German Panzers while strapped with explosives. I do not know the amount, wikipedia says a 10-12kg mine (look up anti tank dog).
@@TheJohn_HighwayCorrect. The Soviets found out that the dogs went for the diesel smell of their own tanks instead of the petrol fumes from the German panzers. All because they were trained on diesel tanks
Could you perhaps give a try to the Gammon bomb as well? I wager it would be marginally more likely to score such a simulated impact, with the All-Ways fuse.
Hey, I've been drafting up a tank on paper and I've wanted to see how kontakt-5 ERA is against a 20mm plate with ammo behind the plate, with some light autocannon fire (perhaps 40mm bofors)
I would have thought just placing the greandes on top of the hatch would simply direct most of the energy upwards, unlike an HE shell which has momentum driving it into the armor before detonation
HEs have a fuse at the tip and the explosion spreads from the tip along the projectile and to the sides, which makes sense because the HEs are supposed to hit targets above the ground they hit.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I understand that, I just figured setting grenades on top of a hatch wouldn't confine the explosion and waste most of the explosion's energy vs stuffing an explosive into a confined space, such as between a turret bustle and engine deck
I think the effects of explosives appear to be overrated by these simulations. 120mm HE rounds caving in hatches due to hits on the front turret etc.etc. if you look at tanks hit by stuff like Mavericks on the front turret the blast damage is t particularly visible.
Hey Dejmian, what about L15A2 155mm shell vs Tiger II UFP? Just to compare how the bigger mass of tnt equivalent will differ in damage in comparison with the 152mm HE
So, there is the video by the German Bundeswehr almost splitting a Leopard 1 in half with a PzH 2000 in direct fire. I would find it very interesting to see how that works out against a modern MBT with a frontal hit. Full propellant load at 1000m maybe? 😊 Now, I posted this already a few minutes ago, and as it happens, youtube deleted my comment right away. I dont know why, but it happens a lot to me on certain channels and without any input or action by the channel operators. However, I found out that if I pad the comment with lots of words (what I am doing now), it usually slips through this pathetic filter. If you can read this, I've done enough. 😂
KV-1 turret roof was 40mm, hull roof at engine compartment was 30mm and 40mm over crew compartment. It was actually improved in 1941. to 40mm over frontal 1/2 of engine compartment.
The maximum amount that can be modeled with good quality. I don't think that the fact that it was a hatch and not a single armored plate would have changed much.
I heard about 40mm, but in this case I based it on British trials, which I posted in the community tab. They measured the thickness and hardness of the armor plate.
Yes, but you can't time grenades! By the time the second one exploded, the armor would have deflected the shock wave of the first grenade! The 14 grenades would not be able to function as a unit in reality, so they would explode with a minimal but definitely time delay! /2-6ms - The 2., and last/ It would depend on the distance to each other! In reality, therefore, it is not possible to eliminate a tank with a hand grenade! Since the TNT is in closed containers, the propagation of the unobstructed explosion velocity does not apply! Effectively, only a special anti-tank grenade can be used!
Wtf you talking about? With such a delay, one grenade would destroy all other grenades before they could explode, which is of course impossible, because they would explode before it happened, as shown in the simulation. From any logical point of view, how could it explode with such a delay???
7km/sec is the detonation of TNT, the middle grenade is the only one with a primer going off. When it explodes it detonates all the other grenades surrounding it at once - how do you think a frontline weapon would function? That they would put a fuse to all grenades lol
